Talk:Opposition to homosexuality

What is this page about?

This page does not relate to homophobia, it relates to opposition to homosexuality. There is already a page on homophobia, which does not even begin to expound the vast array of social, moral, ethical, religious and ideological grounds upon which arguably the majority of people in the world oppose homosexuality.Ros Power 20:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to homosexuality is by definition homophobia. The issues you mention are dealt with in the homophobia artcle and in other articles. This article constitutes both original research (not allowed) and a non-neutral point of view (not allowed). Exploding Boy 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment below. "Homophobia" is a pejorative term. Look at the etymology of the word: homophobia, i.e. fear of homosexuals. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, and using the word "homophobia" to describe people who are against homosexuality is simply an ad hominem attack meant to silence the utterer. Expanding this article would be a great way to consolidate all the information on the subject and reduce the size of the associated articles in Christianity, Islam, Homosexuality, etc. This article is a slam-dunk, if anybody took to the time to complete it.

NO, it is NOT. It simply isn't. That would be an example of an individual redefining the language to suit their narrow ideological goals, which is about as POV as it is possible to imagine. Usigned comment added by Ros Power

I agree with Exploding Boy, this article will offer nothing different to the pages on Homophobia and similar topics. For instance many of these themes are discussed elsewhere - such as the page on Homosexuality and religion, Homosexuality and Islam and even Homosexuality and Scientology. Swpmre 20:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have two votes for deletion. Here's the third. I agree with Exploding Boy; the article is original research and is groaning under the weight of POV. I am all for interesting and controversial contributions, but this is neither: just recycled dross which might as well be copied directly from an article by The Westboro Baptist Church.

(Personal attack removed)

This article really needs a neutrality tag, too. AngelOne 06:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is dripping with POV, original research, and is so staggeringly one-sided it's breath-taking. Article seems to be recycled, rehashed quotes by rent-a-mouth reactionaries. This sort of thing just lowers the whole tone of WP. Strong agree with delete. 83.217.190.69 19:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please conduct deletion discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to homosexuality. Thanks, The Land 20:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer

Happy to take it offline, pad it out, reference it etc, but would prefer if people could help contribute. I do think there is a genuine problem with homosexual activists and militants "owning" all the material on homosexuality on WikiPedia. It really is a particularly shameful POV aspect of WP.Ros Power 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments. While we are obliged to assume good faith, you now seem to be claiming a second, different, more personal and as yet unproven reason for your contribution. 83.217.190.69 12:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand how this works. Let me see if I've got this right. Homosexual activists contribute all the material on homosexuality to Wikipedia, censor, control and edit it. Most of their homepages bear witness to their activism or homosexual behaviour and that doesn't constitute "a second, different, more personal and as yet unproven reason for [their] contribution[s]"? Have I got that right? And I want to present the reasoned and rational arguments against that perspective, and yet I can't, simply because I have an opinion?Ros Power 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All: Just deleted my own reply to Ros Power rather than bore you with it. It would only lead Ros Power to begin her 'WP is run by a Gay World Order' rant that has blighted so many other discussion pages. Your wiser heads will I am sure prevail and this article will no doubt soon be binned. 83.217.190.69 13:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every so often someone appears who makes these types of claims. These people are inevitably unsuccessful in their attempts to introduce their particular brand of non-neutral content and/or misinformation because their position nearly always originates in ignorance, either of the reality of whatever it is they're arguing, or of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If Ros Power believes that there is a problem with lack of neutrality in the Homophobia article, then the correct solution is to discuss the issue on the article talk page, not to start a non-neutral article in response. Exploding Boy 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to write a neutral article outlining the opposition to homosexuality, in all its depth, breadth and complexity. I do not pretend to be a neutral person on this matter, as I do not pretend to be a neutral person on any matter on which I have an opinion. Are you neutral on the subject of homosexuality, Exploding Boy, when you make the claim that opposition to a form of sexual behaviour equates to racism? As to merging, this is not an article about homophobia, it is an article about opposition to homosexuality. The two have nothing in common, though I think some kind of disambiguation may be desirable, as the term homophobia is often used pejoritively. Ros Power 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding Boy's views, your views, my views are all besides the point. The article is the object of discussion here. You have so far failed to write a balanced article: indeed, I have never seen an article so deservedly smothered in negative Tags. Get weaving with quotes from Stonewall, OutRage! et al and you might, just might, be heading towards balancing the article. On a different note: WP is built on consensus. If Exploding Boy feels that Opposition To Homosexuality and Homophobia are one and the same, he is 100% entitled to think so: you are entitled to think otherwise but, as this is a meeting of equals, nobody has right to demand that he subscribe to your opinion. BrainGuy 21:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about opposition to homosexuality. That's what it's about. Stonewall and OutRage are militant pro-homosexual organisations, in what ways do they oppose homosexuality? If Exploding Boy felt that a ten ton grey animal with a trunk and massive ears was a rabbit, would that make it a rabbit, and would his opinion be of equal worth to a zoologist's? BTW, if WikiPedia's based on consensus, it has absolutely no future as an authoritative source, because most people don't know everything about everything.Ros Power 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP is based on consensus: refer to the Help section should you doubt this. Of course these organisations are pro-gay (and stop applying perjoritative labels: you object to their use elsewhere. Hypocrite!) they provide balance, woman, balance! If you continue to fail to sign your comments, don't be surprised if you are viewed as a Internet troll. BrainGuy 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the word "homosexual" is a pejorative term now? I don't see capitulating to people's self-selected euphemisms as the role of an encyclopaedia. The role of an encyclopaedia is to provide accurate, concise information. I want to write a concise article on the manifold ways in which people oppose homosexuality and the homosexualist agenda. Are you going to help or hinder that process? Ros Power 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is going to help you write your anti-gay article. You, madam, are a fascist. BrainGuy 23:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you sir, have abjectly failed to explain yourself, and in using such a term, have exposed the paucity of your position. That, sir, is the fascist reprise.Ros Power 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot write a neutral article without providing opposing points of view; that's one of the ways we ensure neutrality on Wikipedia. You cannot say "A = B" unless there is concrete, irrefutable proof of that claim (for example: "dogs are mammals"). Unless a statement is irrefutable, and very few are, you must provide an opposing point of view in order to create a neutral article: "X states that A = B. On the other hand, Y states that A = C." As to consensus, consensus, in most cases, rules on Wikipedia. If you don't like these rules, perhaps this project is not for you.

And in answer to your question, yes. The word "homosexual" is (often) a pejorative term. If you plan to contribute to articles on sexuality, then you need to familiarise yourself with our manual of style for such subjects.

I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree with this article. The way to approach these types of disputes on Wikipedia is not to create a different article for every point of view, but rather to ensure that existing articles reflect all the major, relevant, important points of view, as appropriate. Currently this "article" is a mess of unverified claims, speculation, stereotypes, original research, and just plain bullshit. All of the relevant and factual material is already covered elsewhere. You are allowing your personal prejudices to colour your approach to this subject, though ultimately (I suspect) this won't matter, since consensus is clearly against you. Exploding Boy 02:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you really are pushing out the envelope of semantic dissembling. How on earth is the word "homosexual" pejorative? I suggest that if you want to write an encyclopaedia using your own curiously defined lexicon, you do it.Ros Power 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ros, homosexual is a word that can be used to belittle others. See http://jacksonville.typepad.com/patum_peperium/2006/03/homosexual_is_a.html

Thanks. --Facto 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Facto, very interesting article, fantastically illustrative of the problem faced on WP. Ros Power 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Exploding Boy, a cursory glance through your contributions history expose a person so deeply inured in the practising homosexual subculture, that I find your assertion that my personal prejudices are likely to colour my approach to this subject such a breathtakingly hypocritical statement I can barely believe my eyes.

The point is this. Throughout the history of the world, in most cultures and jurisdictions, homosexuality has been disapproved of and in some cases severely penalised. There is nothing on WP that summarises the ideological underpinnings of those attitudes. I want to build an article that gives insight into why. Unlike you, I don't think it's remotely encyclopaedic or intellectually honest to use such a meaningless neologism as "homophobia" to cover what is vast, complex and profound, just because I might not like it. Ros Power 08:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are mistaken (and, "meaningless neologism"! Ha!). If you can't be bothered to acquaint yourself with our policies and ways of doing things, and if you disagree so vehemently with them, then why bother participating? I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion since it's clear this article won't last much longer. Exploding Boy 15:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ros, if you are so stuck on others' contributions, then check mine: I have contributed very little to articles relating to LGBTQ issues. And yet, I agree completely with everything Exploding Boy has said. Just because someone is involved in a particular area here on Wikipedia doesn't mean that their opinions can be blown off! Please, have a bit of respect for others, as I'm sure you hope others will have respect for you.

I would like to draw your attention to what Exploding Boy said a few posts ago:

You cannot write a neutral article without providing opposing points of view; that's one of the ways we ensure neutrality on Wikipedia. You cannot say "A = B" unless there is concrete, irrefutable proof of that claim (for example: "dogs are mammals"). Unless a statement is irrefutable, and very few are, you must provide an opposing point of view in order to create a neutral article: "X states that A = B. On the other hand, Y states that A = C."

This is the point, this is why your article simply will not fly. And this is why we are trying to tell you these things. It's not because we're out to get you; there's no reason to be defensive. We're just trying to help you, as editors generally try to help other editors who seem to need a bit of guidance. It would be a much better use of everyone's time if you were to contribute to the already existing articles that are relevant here; I'm sure that, properly sourced and unbiased, at least parts of this article would fit perfectly elsewhere. roma rin [talk ] 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags galore?

I think it is ridiculous that this article has so many template tags. It seems to be a form of vandalism. One or two of those tags is enough. --Facto 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which tags are you referring to? It seems to me that if an article deserves the tags, it deserves them, no matter how many there are, and if you're including the citation needed tags, well, there are currently zero citations in the article, and nearly every sentence is controversial enough to warrant at least one. -Smahoney 01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is POV, unbalanced, citation-free, etc. Those editors adding tags are not at fault: the dismal quality of the article has resulted in an entirely deserved series of tags, IMHO. ReformedCharacter 07:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Presuming the article doesn't get deleted, would the parties involved here agree to mediation? -Smahoney 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a bridge best crossed when we come to it. There seems to be very little enthusiasm for keeping the article and I suspect deletion is inevitable. ReformedCharacter 07:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

It seems to me that redirecting to societal attitudes towards homosexuality would be less POV. -Smahoney 18:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]